T-90 vs. Abrams

T-90 vs. Abrams

I was watching this T-90 vs. Abrams video today http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L0SPYJNhII and thought to myself this is rubbish. The Russians seem to be impressed that their tank can jump airbourne off prepared ramps and run about quickly in a field, but so what. How does a T-90 compare to the latest Abrams MBT? Can the T-90's gun penetrate the Chobham/DU armour of the Abrams? Can the T-90's armour stop the Abram's 120 gun? Has any Russian T-64/T-72 derived tank ever defeated even the earliest Abrams?

I suppose it depends AB. Also, the question probably needs to be asked in two ways: namely are we talking about an artificial one-on-one tank battle, or are we talking about an Abrams squad/battalion/regiment taking on an equivalent T-90 formation (with or without supporting arms).
In the former scenario, I suspect the truth of it is that both tanks are capable of destroying the other if they get themselves into an advantageous position. The Abrams is a shade faster (42mph cf 37mph), but it's also a good deal heavier, so the maneuverability might be just about evenly matched. The Abrams is going to be more heavily armoured (it weighs 20 ton more, so you'd kind of hope so...) and there's a reasonable chance that the Abrams armour is more effective (more heavy investment in the technology over the past couple of decades), but there's no doubt that a 125mm sabot can penetrate parts of an Abrams provide they hit close enough to perpendicular. The same is also true of the Abrams' 120mm gun: there'll be places it can take down a T-90 (and some places it can't).The sighting system on the Abrams should be pretty damn good (there have been about 3 rounds of upgrades since the M1A1 came into service and the fire control computer sounds pretty rad (ballistic prediction based on multiple sensor inputs), but there is no innate reason to the think that the T-90's fire control system will be bad (although it does date from the 1980s). The Abrams might have a couple of advantages: that extra crewman will make life easier for the tank commander and gunner in the event of an ammunition foul up. Similarly, I'd expect that the Abrams' passive protection kit (e.g. laser and radar warning systems) will be somewhat better based on the Indians already seeking out replacements for some of the sub systems in their T-90.
In the event of the later scenario (battalion on battalion) I'll back the Abrams any day of the week. The major component of recent Abrams updates (e.g. M1A1AIM) is on battlefield networks. Basically, as CEC makes a fleet much more potent than it would be otherwise, a really good battlefield network makes a really big difference for the Abrams battalion. As such even though the first couple of engagements of the battle could go the Russian's way (if they were in a better firing position) I wouldn't expect that to last.

Conclusions: one on one there's probably not an immense amount in it and either could well win, but at a formation level I'd back the Abrams anyway. All of this, of course, neglects the human element of the equation.

After seeing these hypothetical threads over the years, it always comes down to the same answers. See first, shoot first, kill first! When two equipments are evennly matched it will come down to the crew. As shown in WW2, or the Israeli conflicts, a superior crew can more than compensate for an inferior tank but a superior tank rarely (if ever) can compensate for an inferior crew. If the crews are relatively matched, then the guy who sees the other first has the advantage of either opening the engagement or selecting better firing position. The guy who shoots first will usually hit first with modern fire control. The first hit(s) will usually diasble or kill the other guy. So be alert, be quick and be proficient. Each tank can kill the other under many battlefield conditions.

I favor the four man crew because of work load. One more guy to pull pms and stand watches etc. I've been in a tank crew and it was definitely harder dealing with a 24 hour combat type environment when we had one less guy. This probably translates to lower fatigue level for the four man crew.

The Russian style of war determines tank design. They want one giant battle (think Kursk) to determine the outcome, so they want cheap expendable systems American design works with the philospohy that the Tank is expected to last throughout the entire war. Russians build a tank around the main gun, American build the chassis and the gun follows. The T-90 will sale for about $3.9 million, you can't buy an old M-1 for that price. Which tank is preferred? Depends on what kind of terrain are you operating on and how you intend to deploy. In a Company vs. Company the Americans have a huge advantage. But if your fighting whole Brigades close up in a giant tussle then it's strictly an attritional swap (My 100 T-90s for your 80 M-1A2s). In vast open expansions the M-1 has a big advantage due to the gun's range and stabilization, but in a scrub pines where the vehicles are practically bumping into each other, the smaller T-90 can stand toe to toe with the newest model M-1. It becomes a quick draw contest. All that said M-1s and other Tanks are stepping into a big disadvantage with being so heavy and bulky. You are restricted to operating on certain bridges and tunnels. Ivan knows this and he is going to know exactly which bridges and tunnels you can operate on, and he will force you to pay a toll at every bottleneck.

Artillery isn't going to help that much in a forest. The canopy is going to detonate the rounds before they reach the ground. Scrub pine is not the same as a forest, it however is useful to hide in. That said, Infantry has a place to hide in but TOWs, Dragons and other Missiles which utilize wire guidance systems are very restriced by the foilage. LAWs, Carl Gustavs and the other Light Anti-Tank weapons are not recommended to engage a MBT. It may ruin the paint job, but not do much anything else. Infantry types learn its better to leave the tanks alone until they are parked and then just raid the laager site when they are asleep.

binder001 wrote:The first hit(s) will usually diasble or kill the other guy.

But is this still the case with the M1A2 with DU/Chobham armour? The M1 was designed to fight against numerically superior T-72 derivatives, so the Abrams designers would have expected their tank to take several first hits from other tanks while the Abrams is killing each T-72 in turn. As for a one on one fight, what shell do the Russians have today that can penetrate the frontal armour of the latest Abrams? Also, what armour is on the T-90 that will stop the shell from the Abrams? I'm not a "Abrams is invincible" zealot, but I have to think that from the front, the T-90 can not kill the Abrams, while the Abrams can kill the T-90 even through its thickest frontal armour.

i have to say that a good analogy might be the chieftan vs iraq tanks in the iran iraq war. the chieftan was at the time the most powerfully armed and armoured tank in nato use. the iraqi army still managed to kill them . even if it takes 5 hits to knock one out it is still dead.

I'd answer this question with another. The Chally 2 and the latest Abrams are pretty similar in terms of armour protection. In the last few rounds of Iraqi action... how many of either were lost? Not many. One Chally came out of Basra with 70 RPG's sticking out of it. I know a couple of Abrams were knocked out and ended up being destroyed by air strike.

Seeing as we're highly unlikely to see "TLW" or another NATO- Warsaw Pact Cold War spring up (let's hope not anyway!) then divisional sized engagements won't be happening anytime soon. Probably not even regimental sized clashes, more likely they will be troop or squadron engagements (if at all). There you're looking at the first see- first kill, and also at co-ordination. Does the Russian kit have Link capability, or equivalent? Can the troop commander view his vehicles' live deployment?

Tom Clancy got many things right in several of his books (someone correct me on this, wasn't Red Storm Rising required reading at West Point for a time?), when he talked about things like artillery fire units and so on. In one of his later books he describes an exercise between networked M1's and non-networked Bundeswehr Leo2's, with predictable results. I'd suggest that based on his previous predictions, this would be pretty true to life too.

I guess as always, the answer always relates to the system, not the individual unit.

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?

Tom Clancy got many things right in several of his books (someone correct me on this, wasn't Red Storm Rising required reading at West Point for a time?), when he talked about things like artillery fire units and so on. In one of his later books he describes an exercise between networked M1's and non-networked Bundeswehr Leo2's, with predictable results. I'd suggest that based on his previous predictions, this would be pretty true to life too.

Tom Clancy had a habit of maximizing everything American. Some systems he wote about in glowing terms were pure garbage. Generals and Admirals shamelessly sucked up to him because he sold those systems much better than any Ad in his fiction. While his plots were always good and the read entertaining, they lacked realism. His credibility was right there with Sgt. Fury and his howling commandoes.

Dcnwilltex wrote:Tom Clancy got many things right in several of his books (someone correct me on this, wasn't Red Storm Rising required reading at West Point for a time?), when he talked about things like artillery fire units and so on. In one of his later books he describes an exercise between networked M1's and non-networked Bundeswehr Leo2's, with predictable results. I'd suggest that based on his previous predictions, this would be pretty true to life too.

Tom Clancy had a habit of maximizing everything American. Some systems he wote about in glowing terms were pure garbage. Generals and Admirals shamelessly sucked up to him because he sold those systems much better than any Ad in his fiction. While his plots were always good and the read entertaining, they lacked realism. His credibility was right there with Sgt. Fury and his howling commandoes.

Agreed.

Executive Orders - 2 Brigades Versus 6 Divisions....Oh look, the Americans win...
Bear and the Dragon - Single American Division cuts the supply lines of the whole Chinese force. Mentions of a British Tank Regiment moving east, but nothing about the rest of 1st Armoured and nothing mentioned about it after that one time. Rainbow training the Spetznaz.....right.... Blackhawks carrying the teams to the ICBM base, whats wrong with Mi-8's?

At least he gets the technical side a lot better then other authors such as Matthew Reilly, and doesn't seem to be in love with the Kilo Class Submarine and US Navy Seals like Patrick Robinson. Anyone read Patrick Robinson 2008 based falklands book....the attack on and resulting surrender of the British Fleet is a bit....weird...and IIRC his T45's are launching Sea Dart....

Dcnwilltex wrote: Tom Clancy had a habit of maximizing everything American. Some systems he wote about in glowing terms were pure garbage. Generals and Admirals shamelessly sucked up to him because he sold those systems much better than any Ad in his fiction. While his plots were always good and the read entertaining, they lacked realism. His credibility was right there with Sgt. Fury and his howling commandoes.

Yes of course, and he sells most of his books in the states. Making friends of military officers is a good way to get nice tours with good background info. He makes his living that way.

While he does go beyond clinical realism in his books it's also obvious that anything praising US stuff is likely to get short shrift from certain individuals on this board. It's fashionable.

as many people here are discussing the realism of tom clancy etc . i would like to point out a little game called Harpoon . it was originally a board game from larry bond i belive . anyway it was used to wargame the " hunt for red october " and numerous other novels . it set the standard for realism . having said this in a fight between any modern tank ( leclerc / t-80 + / chally / abrams / mervaka / etc ) the first shot is going to be %90 effective. ie it will hit and most likely penetrate . now the question is does one hit kill a tank . the answer is a big ? mark .with exposed ammo good chance . with ammo bins maybe not . as for missile effectiveness why are nations still investing in tanks if missiles are so effective ???????

as many people here are discussing the realism of tom clancy etc . i would like to point out a little game called Harpoon . it was originally a board game from larry bond i belive . anyway it was used to wargame the " hunt for red october " and numerous other novels . it set the standard for realism . having said this in a fight between any modern tank ( leclerc / t-80 + / chally / abrams / mervaka / etc ) the first shot is going to be %90 effective. ie it will hit and most likely penetrate . now the question is does one hit kill a tank . the answer is a big ? mark .with exposed ammo good chance . with ammo bins maybe not . as for missile effectiveness why are nations still investing in tanks if missiles are so effective ???????

Clancy admitted that Red October was written from info gleamed through Harpoon and Jane's. Both are good references, but they are to be read and played with a grain of salt. The stats gleamed are given by the manufacturer and do not reflect the real capability nor limitations of the weapons system. I would really question the 90% effectiveness. I would not bank on 90% of all shots hitting their targets. Penetration is going to be determined by range, angle of the shot and the armor of the target.

alspug wrote:as many people here are discussing the realism of tom clancy etc ...as for missile effectiveness why are nations still investing in tanks if missiles are so effective ???????

The only Tom Clancy I've read (Debt of Honour) the gee whiz technology on both sides worked like the manufacturers would like us to believe. That's why it's the only one I've read.Why are nations still investing in tanks? Because they are effective...as are missiles and many other "anti-x" items and the "x" items they counter.It's all a balance, which the media just don't get.

Oops. Sorry chaps, been away for a few days. I didn't intend for a whole Clancy discussion to steam on! I was merely pointing out his portrayal of a networked system....... Yes, I know a lot of the novels are very US-centric. But anyway...!

Talk of tank vs tank begs a question- regardless of their effectiveness, which projectiles are the most and/ or least accurate? I seem to recall something about the British HEAT round being preferred due to its' accuracy over the APFSDS, is this true? Certainly the ex-Alvis guys I worked with in Coventry used to talk about their 30mm RARDEN guns being more accurate than the 120mm practice rounds.

Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?